UNITED STATES. t1. BETHEA..
(Di8trict Oourt, D. South. Oarol'£na. January 8, 1S9L)
Poe'!'-OJTICIi-ROBBERY FROM MAILS-DECOY l;'AClUGES.
A postal-car employe who takes from the mail under his charge' a package .containing things of value, although placed in the mail as 'decoy, and addreBBed to a perSOn no existence, is punishable under Rev. St. U. S. §S 8891,5467, denouncing a penalty against any postal employe who takes any letter or packet "intruilted to him, * *. * and which was intended to be conveyed by maiL * * * n :Following U. S. v. Wight, 88 Fed. Rep. 100; U. S. v. Darsey, 4Q Fed. Rep. 752; and fT. S. v. WhUtWr, 5DilL85. Refusing to follow U. S. v. Demicke, 85 Fed. Rep. 407, and U. S. v. MattheWs, 85 Fed. Rep. 890.
At Law. Indictment for robbing the mails. Rev. St. U. S. § 3891,'provides that" .A.t:ty person employed in any department of the postal service, who shall unlawfully detain, delay, or open any letter, packet, bag, or mail letters intrusted to him, or which has come into his possession, and which was intended to be conveyed by mail, or carried or dellve.red by any mail-carrier, mail-messenger, letter-carder. or other person employed in any department postal service, or forwarded through or deliveredfrom any post-office or bra.nch post-office established by authority of the postmaster-general, or who shall secrete, embezzle, or destroy any such letter, bag, or mail of letters, although it does not contain any security for, or assurance relating to, moriey or other thing of value, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both." Section 5467: declares, among other things, the punishment of any postal employe who shall secrete, embezzle, or destroy any letter, packet, etc., "intrusted to him," etc., for the purposes described in section 3891. Abicl Lathrop, Dist. Atty. J. M. Joh'll8O'n and Charle8 A. Woods, for defendant. SIMONTON, J. The defendant is indicted, under sections 8891 and 5467 of the Revised Statutes, for taking from the mail in his posse&sion a package, and stealing its contents, which had value. He was a postalcar employe between Wilmington, N. C., and Jacksonville, Fla. The evidenoe on the part of the government was that among the contents of a mail-bag distributed by defendant on the train was a box containing a stud and a dollar bill; that defendant opened the box, and appropriated its contents, throwing the box away; that the box was really a decoy package, addressed to W. H. Tatum, Orange Park, Fla. There is no such person as Tatum. The inspector who caused the decoy package to be put in the mail intended to intercept it before or when it reached Orange Park post-office. At the close ofthe evidence by the prosecution, the defendant moved the court to instruct the jury to find him not guilty, upon the ground that a decoy package addressed to a person not existing, and not intended to be delivered to the addressee, is not within sections 3891 and 5467, Rev. St. He quotes and relies upon U. S. v. Demicke, 35 Fed. Rep. 407; U. S. v. MaUMws, 35 Fed. Rep. 890. The
THE CH1USTOBAL COLON.
same question wasIDll.de inU. B. v. Wight, 38 lJIed.Rep.l06j U. S.v. DOTsey, 40 Fed. Rep. 752j and U. S. v. Whittier; 5 DilL 35,-and an opposite conclusion reached. A careful consideration of the sections in question satisfies me that those two sections cover every package which has come into the hands of a postal employe, "intended to be conveyed by mail;" and, if he deals unlawfully with it, he cannot be excused because it cannot be delivered to the person to whom it is addressed. I concur with cases in Dillon, 38 and 40 Fed. Rep., and dismisll the Illotion. See, also, U. B.v. F01I6, 1 Curt. 364.
THE CHRISTOBAL COLON. CAVALIER'll. THE CHRISTOBAL COLON.
(DlBtrlct Court, E. D. Lou1.8iana. December 26, 1890.)
llutITIME LIENS-DAMAGE FOR TORTS.
A person injured by the negligence of the master and owners, while employed in loading coai upon a foreign vessel sa a supply, has a lien upon the vessel for his damages.
In Admiralty. Percy Roberts and Alfred Goldthwaite, for libelant. Bayne, Denegre &: Bayne, for claimant.
BILLINGS, J. This cause is submitted on the exception that no cause of action is shown in the libel against the vessel. It is not denied that there would be admiralty jurisdiction in an action in personam. The question presented is whether the libelant, upon the alleged facts. has So lien upon the vessel. The facts alleged in the libel are that the Christobal Colon was a vessel engaged ·in foreign commerce, (the claim filed by the respondent shows that she is a foreign vessel, her owners residing in Barcelona, Spain;) that she was taking on coal for a voyage; that the libelant was employed to aid in loading the coal; that while so employed, through the negligence of the master and owners in not closing certain sections of the' hatchway, he fell through the same and was injured, and thereby has suffered damage in the amount of $10,000. The question then is whether a person injured by the negligence of the master and owners, while employed in loading coal supplied for a voyage upon a foreign steam vessel, for the damage which he has suffered has a lien upon the vessel. Those who supplied the coal have a lien. It is difficult to see why those who were employed in loading the coal should not also have a lien. In several cases in this court judgments have been given against the vessel for injuries suffered by employes through the negligence of the own· ers. On appeal to the circuit conrt the libelants also recovered. It is true that no question was made in these cases as to the lien·. ' See,2'M